Three issues with the 'historic framework' with Iran

The White House may still get what it wants from Congress on an Iran nuclear deal, even after Senate Democrats and Republicans banded together on compromise legislation to force President Obama to submit any agreement for review and Obama gave up on his veto threat.

Most Democrats who support congressional review are likely to back any deal the president signs, denying Republican opponents the 67 Senate votes they would need to block Obama from waiving sanctions against Iran, even though they would remain U.S. law.

"If the administration can't persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it's really a bad agreement," said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.

The White House is claiming victory, but it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic one. Here are three reasons why:

1.) There may be no deal.

Since Obama announced April 2 that negotiators had agreed on a "historic framework" that would limit Iran's nuclear program for at least 10 years, many issues that were supposed to have been settled have come unraveled.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has put his weight behind the chorus of Iranian officials insisting the country will not sign a deal without immediate relief from international sanctions. Iranian officials also have said they will not allow international inspectors to visit military sites, a key provision in the U.S. version of the framework.

"There is no framework agreement. Basic differences between Iran and the United States seem to be unresolved," said Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

When negotiators return to work Wednesday in Vienna, they will have less than three months until their self-imposed July 1 deadline to resolve those differences.

2.) The deal may not prevent an Iranian bomb.

The Institute for Science and International Security, in an analysis published Saturday, highlighted key ambiguities in the framework that could allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons if they're not resolved.

The group recommended that indefinite restrictions be placed on Iran's construction of heavy-water reactors such as the one at Arak, its capacity to enrich uranium and its use of the heavily fortified Fordow facility to ensure Iran's nuclear program is peaceful.

In the analysis, the institute also repeats previously expressed concerns about verification, noting the importance of Iran giving a full accounting of past military-related nuclear activities and full access to international inspectors. Iranian officials continue to publicly refuse both conditions.

"This is one of those key unresolved areas, because it requires them to give up this illusion that this was always a peaceful civilian program and admit to the world that no, they were actually trying to build a nuclear weapon," Coons said. "I think this will be the last thing that they will give up."

Fred Fleitz, senior vice president of the conservative Center for Security Policy, is skeptical that any deal will work at all, because the United States has accepted allowing Iran to enrich uranium, which is barred by U.N. Security Council resolutions and which he said would guarantee the eventual development of a nuclear weapon.

"Uranium enrichment should have been a deal-breaker," he said. "When we gave this up, we told them whatever you want for a deal we will give you."

3.) The deal may not be enforceable.

Though U.S. officials insist the military option remains on the table, Russia's decision Monday to go ahead with the long-delayed sale to Iran of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles is likely to greatly increase the cost of any airstrike aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that delivery of the missiles was a reward for Iran's cooperation in the talks, and Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, who is attending an international security conference in Moscow, said Wednesday before his departure that he would sign a contract for delivery of the missiles by the end of the year.

Officials in Washington had a different reaction.

"It was a stab in the back," Kirk said. "Any solution that involves trust with the Russians does not appear to be valid at all."

The idea expressed in the framework of limiting Iran's uranium enrichment to its facility at Natanz and barring the activity at the heavily fortified Fordow site was designed as an incentive to prevent cheating, Coons said.

"The Russian move to then provide an S-300 shield for that is in my view an unconstructive tactical countermove," he said.

There is also the question of what to do about U.S. sanctions, which deal not only with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, but also with other concerns not part of the talks, such as Tehran's global support for terrorism, the Shiite Muslim theocracy's abysmal human-rights record and its development of ballistic missiles.

The compromise legislation, which the Senate will take up Monday, makes clear that only nuclear sanctions will be lifted. But that may not be easy, Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and an expert on the architecture of sanctions, told the Washington Examiner.

"Most of the sanctions that target Iran are hybrid sanctions," Dubowitz said. "They cover the whole range of Iran's illicit behavior. You can't separate them."